The Bombay High Court was informed that all the necessary details to start the structural audit work of Esplanade Mansion in Kala Ghoda has been submitted to ascertain if repairs can be done to building.
A division bench of Justice AA Sayed and Justice Riyaz Chagla were informed by the landlord that process of valuation has been started by IIT, and necessary information and documents as required by IIT, has been submitted. The court had in July last year, appointed IIT to carry out a structural audit to check the strength of the building and find out if it can be repaired. The cost of the expert was to be borne by petitioner Advocate Ashok Sarogi and owners of the building. Also an expert was appointed after a portion of the dilapidated building had collapsed.
However, the audit got delayed as the landlord had delayed on his share of payment of Rs 6 lakh. The court had on earlier occasions reprimanded the landlord after which he agreed to clear the due amount of Rs 3 lakh within three weeks. The bench warned the landlord by stating that, "If the amount is not paid within the stipulated time necessary consequences shall follow including action for contempt for breach of undertaking.
During a hearing soon after the collapse, the court noted that it would be a disaster if the Esplanade Mansion, whose occupants sought a stay on their eviction from the decrepit heritage building, collapsed, as it would cause loss of many lives.
Advocate Ashok Sarogi moved tocourt against the eviction notice issued to the building's occupants by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) in 2015. Sarogi is one of the tenants of the Esplanade Mansion, where a slab collapsed. While nobody was injured, a taxi parked on the road got crushed.
MHADA, has been issuing eviction notices since 2007 to the owners and tenants. It has declared the building to be in dangerous condition. There are 15 families and over 200 advocates residing there," he said.
Sarogi had moved to HC in 2015 when MHADA issued an eviction notice after the building was declared dilapidated and dangerous for habitation. The court had granted a stay on it, but noted that the tenants were occupying the premises at their own risk.
